D&D General Is This Evil? D&D Morality.

[Mind of tempest]

Humans don't eat any sentient creatures....as far as we know. But yes, if there is Cosmic GOOD and EVIL, and any animal on Earth has sentience, then yes all those humans are evil for eating that meat.

Though, the point is with magic and super intelligent beings.....you would KNOW.

dude the list of sentient life is nearly all of it by mass, do you mean sapient life?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Humans don't eat any sentient creatures....as far as we know. But yes, if there is Cosmic GOOD and EVIL, and any animal on Earth has sentience, then yes all those humans are evil for eating that meat.

Though, the point is with magic and super intelligent beings.....you would KNOW.

Technically speaking, "sentient" refers to the ability to feel things and have awareness of one's surroundings. Most beings with a spinal cord are sentient, and a significant set of things without it are probably sentient too (such as squid and octopi.)

Sapient, on the other hand, refers to beings which have intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness comparable to a human being, or which would develop those things on its own in due course (e.g., children or mentally disabled persons are generally still considered sapient.) Being more precise than that is a HUGE debate that I don't want to get into; suffice it to say that, whether or not any given person approves of that definition, it's a useful starting point for discussion.

Eating a sapient being is a pretty big no-no in the vast majority of human cultures; eating a sapient being that specifically doesn't want to be eaten is essentially always considered a major violation. Eating sentient beings is what all humans who consume meat do. Because we have no experience of sapient beings that aren't humans, this means we tend to default to speaking in terms of humans eating other humans, but the underlying concepts hinge on the sapience, not specifically being human.

 

[bloodtide]

dude the list of sentient life is nearly all of it by mass, do you mean sapient life?

Technically speaking, "sentient" refers to the ability to feel things and have awareness of one's surroundings. Most beings with a spinal cord are sentient, and a significant set of things without it are probably sentient too (such as squid and octopi.)

Sapient, on the other hand, refers to beings which have intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness comparable to a human being, or which would develop those things on its own in due course (e.g., children or mentally disabled persons are generally still considered sapient.) Being more precise than that is a HUGE debate that I don't want to get into; suffice it to say that, whether or not any given person approves of that definition, it's a useful starting point for discussion.

Eating a sapient being is a pretty big no-no in the vast majority of human cultures; eating a sapient being that specifically doesn't want to be eaten is essentially always considered a major violation. Eating sentient beings is what all humans who consume meat do. Because we have no experience of sapient beings that aren't humans, this means we tend to default to speaking in terms of humans eating other humans, but the underlying concepts hinge on the sapience, not specifically being human.

Yes, I don't want to get into the Word Salad. And I want to avoid "must be exactly like humans" too.

But yes Consciousness, Self Awareness and Intelligence....the BIG things that only humans have.

And yes, I know you will quote some study were someone says dogs are "whatever" because they can see refelctions in a mirror or whatever. Does not matter.

In the D&D multiverse you KNOW 100% what ANYTHING really is, by magic or super intelligent beings....or just by asking PURE COSMIC EVIL. None of that can be done in real life.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Technically speaking, "sentient" refers to the ability to feel things and have awareness of one's surroundings. Most beings with a spinal cord are sentient, and a significant set of things without it are probably sentient too (such as squid and octopi.)

Yes.

Sapient, on the other hand, refers to beings which have intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness comparable to a human being, or which would develop those things on its own in due course (e.g., children or mentally disabled persons are generally still considered sapient.) Being more precise than that is a HUGE debate that I don't want to get into; suffice it to say that, whether or not any given person approves of that definition, it's a useful starting point for discussion.

Eating a sapient being is a pretty big no-no in the vast majority of human cultures; eating a sapient being that specifically doesn't want to be eaten is essentially always considered a major violation. Eating sentient beings is what all humans who consume meat do. Because we have no experience of sapient beings that aren't humans, this means we tend to default to speaking in terms of humans eating other humans, but the underlying concepts hinge on the sapience, not specifically being human.

It is pretty arbitrary and unclear humanocentric definition definition though. There is no compelling reason why a smart dolphin wouldn't be "sapient" whereas a dumb human would be.

Any alien species could easily have their own equally arbitrary definition that granted them a personhood but denied it to humans. For example illithids might define things that lack capability to form a telepathic hivemind to be lesser creatures.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, I don't want to get into the Word Salad. And I want to avoid "must be exactly like humans" too.

Don't use words meaning of which you do not understand. It is confusing.

But yes Consciousness, Self Awareness and Intelligence....the BIG things that only humans have.

Like in here. Humans absolutely are not only animals with these qualities.

In the D&D multiverse you KNOW 100% what ANYTHING really is, by magic or super intelligent beings....or just by asking PURE COSMIC EVIL. None of that can be done in real life.

You don't though. There actually isn't any more much magic to detect these things, and even if there was, the magic itself is arbitrary. That some crazy gygaxian magic deems killing orc babies as good doesn't mean that anyone in the setting or in the table needs to agree.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Do you know what sentient means? Our current understanding is that almost all animals are sentient, including insects.

dude the list of sentient life is nearly all of it by mass, do you mean sapient life?

Give them a break, guys. The word "sentient" was used as though it were a stand-in for "sapient" for a very long time. It's better to be instructive and positive than dismissive or talking down.

Also, Mind of Tempest, the vast majority of living biomass is plant matter, which I don't think anyone argues is sentient. Animal life only makes up less than 0.3% of all life by mass, and of it, the vast majority are marine arthropods, terrestrial arthropods, or annelids, beings that are at the very least of debatable sentience.

Any alien species could easily have their own equally arbitrary definition that granted them a personhood but denied it to humans. For example illithids might define things that lack capability to form a telepathic hivemind to be lesser creatures.

Sure. I find most of these arguments painfully tedious. The distinction is quite clear: Does the class of entity (species, computer program, crystalline structure, whatever) usually have the capacity to ask questions of the form, "Does X being have moral worth?"? If so, congratulations, members of that species are moral persons. If you have even the suspicion that they might be able to ask such questions, you should presume that that being is a moral person unless and until you can prove otherwise. Dogs are not moral persons, though that does not excuse treating them (or any other non-sapient animal) poorly. An incapacitated, sleeping, injured, ill, or developmentally-challenged human is not stripped of this status solely for any of those reasons.

Or, if you prefer, we can use The Words from Star Control II: "Hold! Why do you do this! What you are doing is wrong!"

 

[bloodtide]

You don't though. There actually isn't any more much magic to detect these things, and even if there was, the magic itself is arbitrary. That some crazy gygaxian magic deems killing orc babies as good doesn't mean that anyone in the setting or in the table needs to agree.

Well, sure you can say whatever for your game.

And yes you won't find any such spells in the very limited spell selection in D&D books that are ONLY for killing monsters. But in a more Big Picture world such spells would exist.

In the D&D rules though, with Cosmic Good and Evil (so really not the watered down do whatever you like 5E rules), you do know 100% if an action is good or evil.

This is Good and this is Evil, so say the Cosmos. It does not matter what anyone, or any race says or thinks.

 

[Yaarel]

Right. So humans are evil for eating meat.

Sentient in the sense of sapient.

Generally, other forms of life on earth are non-sapient. There might be specific exceptions.

Even when humans eat meat, humans have mixed feelings about. Maybe it is tolerable but non-ideal.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Please don't respond further about it and thank you.

Mod Note:

To everyone: You’re not the “Thread Boss”. People are free to agree or disagree with you. If you don’t like a post so much you feel you should respond this way, DON’T. (Especially if you’ve just spent a lot of time responding in a way that would probably elicit a response).

Instead, disengage. Or use your Ignore list. Or report the post.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure. I find most of these arguments painfully tedious. The distinction is quite clear: Does the class of entity (species, computer program, crystalline structure, whatever) usually have the capacity to ask questions of the form, "Does X being have moral worth?"? If so, congratulations, members of that species are moral persons. If you have even the suspicion that they might be able to ask such questions, you should presume that that being is a moral person unless and until you can prove otherwise. Dogs are not moral persons, though that does not excuse treating them (or any other non-sapient animal) poorly.

An incapacitated, sleeping, injured, ill, or developmentally-challenged human is not stripped of this status solely for any of those reasons.

I see. It certainly is convenient for us species of speaking animals to define standard of greater moral protection by capability to verbalise moral thoughts. A lot of non-human animals are capable of empathy, why this doesn't qualify them as moral actors, why they need to be able to verbalise it?

I also feel it is rather logically questionable that this greater moral protection is granted by the level of species rather than individuals.